John Titor and George W. Bush.

Hadeka

Temporal Novice
huh, well
I think, all of us were waiting the results of the American election.
but it was clear the Bush who will win, but as my point of view, i feel that he doesnt deserve this, that's not fair, there were a lot of cheatings to make Bish wins.

According to this, we must talk about the prediction of John Titor when he predicted that the United States of America will have a civil war in 2005.

The winning of Bush (as my point of view) is a big sign that the Titor's prediction can be real.
I would like to know your points of view here about this.

Thank u.

Hadeka.
 
You seem to imply you are not an American citizen. Would you care to clarify if I am incorrect in this inference?

I think, all of us were waiting the results of the American election.

Yes. American election. Do Americans care about who gets elected in France, or Germany, or...? I may not personally agree with many socialist policies in France, but I would never want to vote in a French election. So why does everyone else in the world think they should be able to help us elect a leader?

that's not fair, there were a lot of cheatings to make Bish wins.

It's probably more fair than the vast majority of elections on this planet. Would you like to present your evidence that there was "cheating"? Were you a poll observer who witnessed such cheating?

The winning of Bush (as my point of view) is a big sign that the Titor's prediction can be real.

And it is quite interesting that someone else could come along and say the exact same thing if Kerry were to win the election. This is nothing more than a sign that the person who crafted the Titor postings played both ends against the middle.

I am waiting for the civil war to break out. But it won't. What people in other countries need to understand are the roots behind our history. We did not become the world's leader because we necessarily wanted it. We did so because we had the guts to stand up and do something (in two earlier, major conflicts, and now again) when something needed to be done.

Whenever some other country wants to lead the world, most Americans would be happy to hand over the keys...once they show they can handle the job so we won't have to ever get involved again. I have said it before, and the evidence is apparant through our history: If America is "about" any one thing, it is about getting things done, instead of complaining. I will once again point out that no other country seems to be running to solve the problems in Sudan. But I hear a lot of complaining. Is THAT situation also the job of the US to step in and stop the murder?

It's time for the rest of the world to step-up and take responsibility for some of the dirty work.

RMT
 
I thought people were comparing Kerry to the Lincoln that Titor mentioned. It's only fair that this counts as proof towards hoax.
 
Interesting Titor Speculation...

CNN article:

Bush wants to Unite Country

President Bush outlined his ambitions for his second term Wednesday after securing victory in the 2004 race against Democrat Sen. John Kerry. "When we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America," he told supporters. "I'm proud to lead such an amazing country and I'm proud to lead it forward," he added.

Titor said in his postings...

"The President or "leader" in 2005 I believe tried desperately to be the next Lincoln and hold the country together but many of their policies drove a larger wedge into the Bill of Rights.

"hold the country together"

AND...

Drudge Report article:

DEMS BEGIN SIZING UP HILLARY (Clinton) FOR '08

Titor said:

"The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base."

"his/her"

Titor says his/her. Was this a hint at a female president in 2008, if so, might he be talking about Hillary Clinton? WHy would anyone say his/her if there had never been a female president ever?

I realize this is reaching, but it does seem likely and it does add up. Wow...suddenly civil war doesn't seem so unlikely anymore.
 
News Flash: Dems Don\'t Get It

Let's review a whole bunch of the verifiable facts, and then we might just possibly understand America is NOT the ultra-liberal, conservative-hating people who are "oppressed" by rampant cheating in elections:

1980-1988 - Ronald Wilson Reagan, an ultra-popular conservative president, who set the stage for the dissolution of the USSR.
1988-1992 - George Herbert Walker Bush, a moderately popular conservative president, who happened to be unlucky enough to hold office during a normal economic down-cycle, which was made worse by an all-too-conservative Alan Greenspan who kept interest rates too high for too long.
1992-2000 - William Jefferson Clinton, a decidedly centrist Democrat who successfully cast himself as "not your run-of-the-mill, Dukakis liberal". While he did TRY to get through some "classic" liberal programs (Hillary's failed socialized health care), he eventually learned the lesson that he was not elected to try that crap, as he lost the Dem's majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in over 20 years! Clinton treaded lightly in his last term, and acted as the centrist Dem that he claimed to be.
2000-2004 - George W. Bush, another conservative Republican who really wanted to cast himself as the next Ronald Reagan. While he ultimately failed in this regard due to his lack of Reagan-esque charisma, his politics were clearly conservative as he passed tax reform to address the economy (which was easily predictable when Y2K was a non-event and all the software programmers hired in the run-up to Y2K were no longer needed, thus precipitating the "dot com bust"). As much as Al Gore tried, the FACTS show that Bush WON the elecoral vote, fair and square, as attested to by MORE THAN ONE liberal-leaning newspaper who recounted the Florida votes.

And now 2004:

1) Bush again wins the White House...this time CLEARLY winning the popular vote AND the electoral vote...this when SO many people were crying for his ouster (turns out it was only the loud-mouthed, liberals, who were really in the minority, and wanted to exact some revenge against the Republicans because they keep winning and the Dems keep losing).
2) Republicans GAIN seats in the House of Representatives, strengthening their majority in that chamber of Congress.
3) Republicans GAIN seats in the Senate, unseating the Democratic Minority Leader, Tom Daschle, who is one of THE most liberal of the Dems, next to the likes of Kennedy and Kerry.
4) Republicans GAIN seats in the governor's mansions around the 50 states, thus increasing the lop-sided "balance of power" at the state level.

Now....would someone like to refute this mountain of evidence that the USA has been walking down an increasingly conservative path since 1980? It is pretty clear at this point in Time (keeping this on topic!) that the MAJORITY of the population in the USA prefers conservative values, which call for personal AND governmental responsibility WITHOUT Draconian taxes and direct interference in our lives, and WITH a strong presence on the world stage such that we don't ever surrender our freedoms to countries who complain but take no action to right the wrongs in the world.

Plain and simple: The person responsible for the Titor hoax recognized the easy-to-see trend in Americana towards conservative values. Being either an outspoken or "closet" liberal, this person wanted to cook-up something big that would seek to de-rail this conservative trend. So he/she/they did their homework and came up with a story that many people (but not all people) would be taken-in by.

You can tell me I am wrong, but you will have to start by refuting the evidence that I have presented above. The American voters have been speaking clearly (and their will has been carried out) for many years now. Much to the dismay of the Democrats who can't seem to figure out how to put together campaigns that will appeal to the MAJORITY of the American people!

It's so funny, it is sad. The Democratic Party now has yet ANOTHER data point that they need to seriously re-invent themselves, or they will be even less of a factor in 2008.

RMT
 
1. The republicans have the guns (literally).
2. Bush won fair and square.
3. The cowboy with his boots kicked the dude wearing the flip flop sandals.

no civil war.

The next president a "Lincoln like" president, according to Tito

Even tho Tito is a fairy tale Bush may be the next Lincoln for all we know, presidents usually look much different from a future perspective, for example.. I can't think of a single bad thing the presidents before JFK have done, because history doesn't remember.

--- Razimus

ps... my new nickname for Titor is Tito, hey maybe there is a connection? It would make sense
Tito wouldn't want you to know who his family is, heh.
 
I find it amazing that americans are so stupid as to vote for bush. I always thought americans were stupid, I just did not believe they were 'that' stupid!
Then again, they link their religion with their politics, a sure sign of stupidity these days.
Lets just hope that the americans know that they will die fairly soon through their stupid actions, the rest of the world should just stand by and watch, with a grin of course /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif


---
The voice of the resistance is coming...
 
where are you from? linking politics with religion! well, when the government IS in control of the religion that is a bad sign I would agree with ya there, guess what, not the case in the USA, but I can think of some that are otherwise, church of england, most muslim countries.

The prez isn't afraid to say he's born again, there's nothing wrong with that.
 
I find it amazing that americans are so stupid as to vote for bush. I always thought americans were stupid, I just did not believe they were 'that' stupid!
Then again, they link their religion with their politics, a sure sign of stupidity these days.
Lets just hope that the americans know that they will die fairly soon through their stupid actions, the rest of the world should just stand by and watch, with a grin of course


Whoops. lorval, AOL has a different address than this site. You must have made a wrong turn somewhere with your search engine. Try again and possibly you will find the appropriate forum for your comments.
 
heyy guys,,

I would like to say why did i said that the winning of Bush is not fair,,and it is just a point of view,,just an opinion,,,but dont 4get that we must respect all opinions,,and i respect ur all opinions.

Im an Egyptian Muslim. As u know, there are many killed American soldiers in the war of Iraq, of course the families of these soldiers are not in a good mood from the death of their sons/husband/fathers....whatever.
Something like that must decrease the voting rate for Bush because he sent these soldiers to die and live their families alone.
and as i said, im an Egyptian Muslim, and i think u know that we muslims and egyptians and arabs are against the war on Iraq and totaly against the supporting of USA to Israel in the middle east.

Another thing that in my point of view must decrease the voting rate for Bush, is that the economy during the last 4 years, since Bush was a president was very bad than before, during Clinton.

Something like that can change the public opinion.

Anyway, i just said that this an opinion and we must respect all opinions because there are many countries are against the American politics and other countries are supporting the American politics.

Thank you, and hope u can understand what i mean here.

Hadeka.
 
You can even be of the same parity as Bush and still not agree with him.

I feel that Bush's push into Islamic countries was not wise, as there was a form of detent established since the last crusades and agreements between Queen Isabella and the Moors.

This president crossed this line and should not have done this.

However there were terrorist cells in Iraq, used as a training base, so what options was Bush left with?

The actions of some soldiers in Iraq, with regards to the prison scandal there, were inexcusable.

I am a very strong proponent of training soldiers socially, before they are allowed to go into any foreign country.

The Vietnamese did not like us either, by saying that foreigners were big, tall, loud mouthed and showed little is any consideration to the people that were naturalized there.

I am mixed in my sentiments about future involvements in Arabic countries, as some very fine research has come out of these countries in many fields.

I don't know what to say about mistreatment of prisoners and social cultural misunderstandings, other than try not to let this happen.
 
You americans think you are so clever why did you vote for a fuckwit like bush? Around the sane world people have been saying what a sad day it is. How bush and his religous freak freinds now have free reign to go after any country they wish. Whats next eh, iran, libya, cuba? You [censored] up yanks need to realize that you are the most hated nation on this planet! Your lives have now become forfeit, most of you will be dead within 10 years, yet you are blinkered to the fact, I have no pity for you except for those who voted for the other guy. But my thoughts are that everytime I have to talk face to face with one of you americans I cannot help but want to punch you in the face. I did not think I hated you that much, but today I could not help myself when I had to talk to you people, I felt dirty talking to the enemy, so I will not do so face to face anymore.

--
The voice of the resistance is coming...
 
Interesting,

I didnt realise they had internet facilities in High Security Asylums these days?

Rainman again, i also see as one of the only voices of reason for this forum.

As for the 'dumb' americans voting for Bush, i personally don't think that there was a huge variety from which they could choose. Kerry, if he was voted, would only be in the same posistion as bush is and would have only to make the same decisions As bush is going to have to.

As for America and War, i really don't think they throw darts at a world map to see where next they can 'invade'.

Like in the UK, its really more or less who's the best of a bad bunch. We have elections soon. Lib Dems couldn't lead themselves out of an open fire exit. The conservatives are in no real state to lead a country right now. UKIP is a bit of a joke, and Then theres that mentalist Party the BNP.

so it looks like Tony blair will win for a 3rd time.

Also i would stop laying the sole blame of the Iraq war on US. Tony blair went in 100% with Bush. Many other countries sat there pretending to be disgusted while behind closed doors they were probably very up for some one else to go and do it for them.

Perhaps special mention should also go to the UN for having their heads wedged so far up their own arses. When the rest of the world needed a definitive response, they just around desperately trying to grow some balls to deal with the situation. Hence they failed.

Kind regards,
OllyB
 
I find the diversity of the world to be fastinating.

The influence of the middle eastern countries is on a global scale.
I stare in awe at the creation of the religious temples and behold the beauty within the sacred walls.
It hasn't entered my thoughts to hate those within the walls, simply because they are of a different faith.

One of my favorite singers is a Syrian, and I admire the resonance of her voice, her talent and gift of melody, even though I dont understand the arabic language, I can understand the message within the music. It doesnt cross my mind to hate her simply because she is from the Middle-East.

I find it difficult to bring hatred against anyone I dont really know, and feel that I should be more responsible for any feelings of animosity towards people I do know.

I dont agree with most of the political systems in place all over the planet, but that doesnt cause me to lash out against the individuals living within those countries. I am sure most of them have the same dreams about their children growing up in a safe world, free from fear of violence.


What would happen if Saddam Hussein had the resources of the U.S. ? If he had the aircraft carriers, and battleships, and all the military hardware at his disposal, do you really think the Middle-East would be any safer?
 
The people of the middle east are not a problem, Their religion is no more a problem then religion of the West. 99.% of the people don't believe in violence. Their religion is not violent in nature.

It's those deluded fanatics who take that religion, twist it to fit in with their own violent ideals that are the problem - and ruin it for everyone else. Its just an unfortunate situation that these are also the people with the power and the money.

It also doesn't help that they prey on young decent kids to do their dirty work for them. How many suicide bombers over the age of 25-30 do you see blowing themselves up. Not many. Because they wouldn't have the guts. They take in the younger ones and fill their minds with hatred and send them to their deaths. You should seriously hear some of the things these kids come out with, their minds are totally shot of all logic. One of the hardest things to take on board is that alot of these suicide bombers and 'freedom fighters', are also victims themselves.


erm...and time travel and stuff etc etc.

Kind regards,
OllyB
 
I completely agree with you, OllyB.

That is exactly the point I was attempting to bring across.

"""The people of the middle east are not a problem, Their religion is no more a problem then religion of the West. 99.% of the people don't believe in violence. Their religion is not violent in nature."""

and..erm...and time travel and stuff etc etc.
 
Back
Top